http://www.diplomacyworld.net/pdf/dw118.pdf
Very interesting Oli.
It basically says you shouldn't make up a Variant too complex, with extra rules or map-features, because what the game is all about is not the map but the relationships among players.
I partially agree. While the most enjoyable maps are usually simple, from time to time I love to commit with something more complex.
I also like what it says in the end, that you should keep the sea-ratio close to the Classic's one (sea spaces= 25.33%). It's one of the forst thing I notice in a new Variant.
IE, on the Lab I said to Great Lakes' developer that so little waterspaces (16%) could easily lead to having stalemates and I suggested to add some rivers, but he replied that he was just adapting someone else's variant.

Good article with legitimate points, but personally, I like variants of all types (and I find Indians of the Great Lakes and Known World, which both have a lot stalemate lines, very playable). I think the original game is looked at too much as the holy grail of Diplomacy, as it is not without flaws itself, and in fact, I think Abstraction III does a nice job of expanding the original by enhancing playability and balance. I also think there are variants superior to the original, like Modern II, and new map features and extra rules can add a new element of fun and exploration (so long as they are not ridiculously complex), as with Rinascimento. While I think the relationships among players is the key element of Diplomacy, I think what makes a strong variant is a high degree of playability, i.e., the outcome is rarely the same. And that can be on maps both similar to and very different from the original.

Indians of the Great Lakes really annoys me. In fact maps with easy to set up Stalemate lines annoy me.

The Modern variant seems to take a lot of flak, but as a PBEM game this variant was designed to offer a third unit type. The wing unit in itself offers an interesting new dynamic to the game, while maintaining relative simplisity, but it also helped to debunk the nature of assumed alliances and conflicts, by providing alternative ways to breach the Mediterranean chokehold and the Venice/Croatia quagmire, in addition to offering a way to attack on the north-south axis in the east.

One of the problems with adding complexity (it can be done) is that many of the players int he pool have not mastered or even come close to understanding the basic principles of the basic game. When you throw a lot of new rules out there, it really takes a special group of players to be able to fully enjoy it. One of the best variants ever designed is Diplomacy Royale, but it was incredibly complex, and you couldn't just open it a game up to the general masses. You needed experienced committed players to make it work.

The article does drive home a good point about variants taking us too far away from the diplomacy aspect of the game by adding additional rules and tactical decisions that make us less likely to communicate. Although I think that this theory misses the point on why there's a 'failure to communicate'. The same absence of diplomcay occurs on a plain vanilla boad of Diplomacy. I guess that even though the blame is miscast at the variants/new rules, it does not help to pour gasoline on the fire. In all I think that the author's point is valid for the beginning/journeyman player, that variants should remain simple. For more experienced players, purists, and elitist snobs (like me), there's no harm in developing complex rules variants.

Yes Great Lakes is very annoying, Easy stalemates and unfair advantages...grrrr
I disagree with Modern been superior. Abstraction III and Europe 1939 offer a better twist.

This article about simplicity reminded me of my board games. While "Axis and Allies" has more cool units and more rules, "Risk" is the most well known strategy game simply because is simple!

risk ftw!!!

The basic mechanics of diplomacy - ie that which makes it fun - are simultanoues movement and multiple players.

You could create a risk or axis and allies variant based on this model. (multiplayer chess is much less chess, and simultaneous chess is not as much fun...)

That is to say, you can add what is good about diplomacy and the need to communicate with other players while only using other rules which already well known... Keep it simple is good, but there are many simple games, simultaneous Xs and Os would be pretty simple, but would it be fun??

I've always viewed Diplomacy as a phenomenal combination of poker, chess, and Risk.

poker, chess, risk and Roborally.

Roborally being the only one that has simultaneous orders.

Good for descriptive purposes for sure Kaner, but Roborally wasn't invented until the mid-80's though, so it's likely that it borrowed the concept of simultaneous orders from Diplomacy. (Note also, Diplomacy was invented a few years before Risk, but wasn't commercially released until two years after Risk.)

I wasn't talking about the origin of the game. But what it reminds me of in combination with.

Gotcha.

Interesting article, I found Stephen Agar to be a reliable voice in the designing of variants. Baron Powell is also very good designer.